288:. This procedure was abandoned years ago because it generated more heat than light. Content issues are almost never subject to polling. Nevertheless, participants on article talk pages do sometimes start polls for gauging opinion, and focusing a long or unruly conversation on a specific question at hand. There is no absolute prohibition on polling, and there are often objections if a poll is summarily closed or deleted on sight using a claim that they are forbidden. Editors who feel that a poll is inappropriate under the circumstances may instead note that further commentary is needed, encourage the discussion to migrate back to a free-form conversation, or open a related discussion.
445:. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are.
309:. In the context of articles, straw polls are most helpful only when they help editors actually reach true consensus, evaluate whether a consensus exists, or "test the waters" of editor opinion among a few discrete choices such as two choices for an article's name. It is important to remember that polls do not in themselves create consensus; rather, they are one tool useful for developing mutual consensus and evaluating whether consensus exists.
648:
opinions by applying solid reasoning and logic. Even so, people new to
Knowledge (XXG) are often confused, due to the strong resemblance between such structured discussion and a majority vote process, which they are not. There is no exact "target" percentage that forms the cutoff point, although some processes, such as requests for adminship, do indicate a rough numerical percentage for establishing consensus.
39:
700:
201:
677:
is final until the case is closed. Arbiters can change their positions as a result of discussions with fellow arbiters. In general, findings which attract opposition are reworded to address that opposition, with the aim of reaching a consensus view among the arbitrators. Nevertheless, Arbcom decisions are subject to simple-majority vote.
628:), it is likely there will be several suggestions for standards. Unless one of them is clearly preferred, an approval poll is recommended to select the best-liked standard. This is a way of helping to gauge which of several possible (often similar) versions has the most widespread support, so that the final version reflects consensus.
121:
540:. Because these processes are somewhat institutionalized, they are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. In reality, Knowledge (XXG)'s policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus.
488:
after a reasonable period of time or once the initial interest in the petition passes. If you plan to create a petition, it may help to allow space for other solutions and approaches that may be proposed by its readers. A typical layout that can encourage a wider range of responses on a serious issue
374:
Straw polls should not be used prematurely or excessively. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming. If a straw poll was called on an
644:. However, in both cases the poll results are subject to interpretation by the party who makes the decision (i.e. the bureaucrats or Jimbo). Historically, the party making the decision has considered the arguments made, the number of editors on each side of the issue, and any other relevant factors.
676:
Although arbitration is not a community process, it is listed here for the sake of completeness. The ArbCom follows a procedure of listing principles, findings of facts and remedies; individual arbiters discuss these issues and then vote for or against statements and resolutions. However, no "vote"
656:
Changes to the MediaWiki software are made by the developers and are usually discussed on
Phabricator. Some people are tempted to call a vote on feature requests on the assumption that the more people support a feature, the more likely the developers are to implement it. However, this is not always
647:
In these processes it is preferable if people discuss, ask questions of the candidate, and state their reasonings, rather than simply stating "yes" or "no" with no further comment. While the end result is often obvious based directly on counts of who said yea or nay, it is possible to sway people's
615:
controversial, doing a headcount to see where the majority lies will not resolve the controversy, and may polarize it further. The controversy may spill onto the poll itself, causing debate on its mechanics. When editors consider a poll ill-advised, they should explain why and if appropriate should
216:
Editors might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options. This is especially problematic when there are complex or multiple issues involved. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and
477:
Petitions are even more problematic since they not only encourage the community to avoid meaningful discourse and engagement, but also limit their scope to only one initially-stated opinion or preference with little or no opportunity for discussing and reconciling competing or opposing points of
409:
The words "vote" and "voting" have a variety of connotations, but they are commonly associated specifically with ballot-casting or majority voting. For that reason, the use of the words "vote" and "voting" might not be the best choice when describing
Knowledge (XXG) processes. While technically
611:, to help editors to understand how Knowledge (XXG) works. This means that it is not necessary, and in many cases unwise, to call a vote or straw poll on a proposed policy or guideline. If a proposal is not controversial, doing a head count is not necessary; if a proposal
272:
during discussions of what material to include in various
Knowledge (XXG) articles. Although such polls are occasionally used and sometimes helpful, their use is often controversial and never binding. Where used, article straw polls should be developed in a way which
220:
Polling may be divisive and cause factionalism. While a poll may occasionally make it a lot easier for people to find a mutually agreeable position, in other cases it can undermine discussion and discourse. In the worst case, polls might cause participants not to
375:
issue recently, there is usually no reason to call a second poll, even if you think that consensus may have changed or that the first poll was conducted unfairly. If you disagree with the "majority" opinion, simply remember point #3 and continue discussions.
316:
that the participants in a straw poll offer and see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise. A few well-reasoned opinions may affect a discussion much more than several unexplained votes for a different
296:
Straw polls regarding article content are often inconclusive and sometimes highly contentious. For straw polls to be productive, editors should keep in mind the reasons why polls should be regarded with caution (above). When polls
595:
Polling is rarely helpful in the development of policies or guidelines, and may be counterproductive. Straw polls and votes have been used in the adoption of a few policies in the past, including the adoption of the
217:
expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is difficult to address objections that aren't stated, nor points which aren't made.
410:
correct, such references may contribute to the misconception that we use a system of majority or supermajority rule. Different terminology (e.g. "seeking views", "polling" and "commenting") may be preferable.
328:
disagree in an effort to change community consensus. Editors who appear to be in the majority should make an effort to continue discussions and attempts to reach as wide an agreement as possible within
139:. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a
177:
such as the election of
Knowledge (XXG)'s Arbitration Committee members (which has been determined by a secret ballot voting system since 2009) or for wider cross-project activities such as electing
350:
Once responses to a straw poll have begun, even minor changes to the phrasing or options of the poll are likely to result in disagreement over whether these changes are fair or if they unfairly "
129:
Most decisions on
Knowledge (XXG) are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions to achieve consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care.
247:
If
Knowledge (XXG) were to resolve issues through voting on them, editors would be tempted to also use voting with respect to article content. This might undermine Knowledge (XXG) policies on
592:
a democracy; while users sometimes think they should make a "motion" on some issue and "call for votes", but this is not the case. No guideline has ever been enacted through a vote alone.
547:
with other editors, and possibly compromise than it is to sign a one-word opinion. "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. "
236:
Polls might lead editors to expect that a majority will automatically win the argument, or that the result is permanently binding. This contravenes
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on
435:
498:
Description of the issue and concerns, and proposed solution. Usually a good ending is to state that "views are sought", "responses by uninvolved users appreciated", etc.
660:
However, for requests for configuration changes for the
English Knowledge (XXG), such as enabling or disabling an existing feature, a straw poll may be helpful for the
233:. In many cases, simple discussion might be better at encouraging careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments than a poll would.
268:
On
Knowledge (XXG), we generally do not line up simply to cast ballots, without some sort of discussion alongside of voting. In some cases, editors decide to use
145:
to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as
664:
tasked with determining consensus for it. Though as with feature requests, the final decision still rests with the Wikimedia sysadmins and, ultimately, the
427:
601:
775:
225:
with the other voters, but merely instead to choose camps. By polarizing discussion and raising the stakes, polls may contribute to a breakdown in
790:
636:
In some cases on Knowledge (XXG), community polls are used to determine whether to trust editors with additional responsibilities, in particular
625:
438:. Unfortunately, some Wikipedians are unaware of this convention and use "!vote" to refer to their actual votes, which can cause confusion.
708:
589:
237:
154:
55:
780:
569:
64:
336:
If a straw poll is inconclusive or very close, or if there is significant disagreement about whether the question itself was fair, then
641:
723:
358:
330:
256:
182:
146:
533:
321:
354:". Because of this, every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll.
785:
577:
190:
181:. Such processes can be completed without detailed rationales from their participants. In addition, certain bodies (such as the
150:
734:
454:
230:
47:
422:" (read as "not-vote") as a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are
604:. In those few cases, the polls were put together carefully and only after discussing the matter for a month or more.
543:
Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is much better for editors to explain their reasoning,
340:
results from the poll. The solution is to seek wider input or use alternative means of discussion and deliberation.
362:
248:
597:
337:
63:
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of
229:, making discussion of controversial issues extremely acrimonious. This makes it difficult for participants to
728:
269:
113:
Explanatory essay about the Knowledge (XXG):Consensus and Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not policies
665:
537:
548:
413:
344:
285:
252:
637:
573:
306:
278:
241:
194:
174:
136:
68:
51:
555:
747:
692:
688:
544:
460:
417:
385:
325:
226:
222:
78:
17:
657:
the case, as the developers consider issues of feasibility and server load to be the primary concern.
478:
view. As a rule, petitions should be avoided; when they are created, they should be closed and marked
351:
661:
513:=== Proposal/viewpoint #2: (further proposal by original poster or added by someone else later) ===
186:
482:
157:; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Knowledge (XXG) are made on the basis of
718:
312:
The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the
28:
343:
Editors should exercise extreme care in requesting that others participate in a straw poll. See
738:
320:
Polls may be helpful in coming to a consensus and in evaluating when a consensus exists, but
581:
431:
502:=== Proposal/viewpoint #1: xxxxxxxxx (one-line header describing the proposed solution) ===
347:, which outlines policy on canvassing (and forms such as "votestacking" and "campaigning").
532:
Knowledge (XXG) has established processes to deal with certain procedures. These include
509:
Section left empty for views/!votes on #1, possibly with a second section for discussion
551:" is frowned upon because it tends to encourage voters without reasoning. The template
443:
it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important
713:
769:
164:
27:"WP:Vote" redirects here. For other issues related to voting on Knowledge (XXG), see
357:
Discussions about article content cannot override Knowledge (XXG) policies on the
585:
284:
Editor conduct used to be subject to polling in the past, via a system called
178:
699:
324:
over time. Editors who disagree with a consensus opinion may continue to
212:
There are several reasons why polling should be regarded with caution:
572:
are created by (1) codifying existing practice; (2) through community
624:
Once it has been decided by consensus to standardize an issue (e.g.
200:
517:
Proposed solution + comments, or statement explaining viewpoint, #2
506:
Proposed solution + comments, or statement explaining viewpoint, #1
576:, or (3) in appropriate cases, as a result of a declaration from
367:
687:
This page is referenced in the Knowledge (XXG) Glossary, under
115:
33:
281:, rather than in an attempt to silence an opposing opinion.
199:
430:. The "!" symbol is used in various fields as a symbol for
561:
can be used to remind editors about this when necessary.
441:
It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that
436:
introduced in this way on English Knowledge (XXG) in 2006
365:. Nor can straw polls be used to determine a question of
755:
468:
400:
393:
100:
93:
86:
264:
Use of polls when discussing Knowledge (XXG) articles
426:
voting, but are just offering individual views in a
301:used, editors should remember the following:
8:
607:The aim of many guidelines is primarily to
56:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
520:Empty section for views/!votes on #2, etc.
169:polling is not a substitute for discussion
331:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
65:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
18:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus is not a vote
371:; such a poll is ultimately pointless.
305:The goal of any article discussion is
187:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
724:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus not numbers
570:Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines
147:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
149:), polls are generally not used for
193:) can on occasion impose decisions
175:There are exceptions to this custom
776:Knowledge (XXG) supplemental pages
735:Knowledge (XXG):Voting is not evil
709:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy
155:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy
135:Knowledge (XXG) works by building
69:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
791:Knowledge (XXG) surveys and polls
455:Knowledge (XXG):List of petitions
240:(a democracy), and what it is (a
741:) countering the previous title
698:
119:
37:
781:Knowledge (XXG) glossary items
616:vote against the poll itself.
528:Deletion, moving and featuring
208:Why regard polls with caution?
1:
428:consensus-building discussion
602:criteria for speedy deletion
729:Knowledge (XXG):Straw polls
238:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
807:
786:Knowledge (XXG) discussion
745:
458:
452:
416:often use the expression "
383:
345:Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing
163:, not on vote-counting or
76:
26:
609:describe current practice
600:, and the older parts of
52:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
127:This page in a nutshell:
195:regardless of consensus
719:m:Battlefield of ideas
642:requests for adminship
590:Knowledge (XXG) is not
489:might look like this:
204:
565:Policy and guidelines
359:neutral point of view
292:Straw poll guidelines
257:neutral point of view
203:
183:Arbitration Committee
534:deletion discussions
322:consensus can change
151:article development
67:as it has not been
363:verifiable sources
352:move the goalposts
205:
731:(failed proposal)
598:three-revert rule
231:assume good faith
133:
132:
111:
110:
48:explanatory essay
16:(Redirected from
798:
758:
714:m:Polls are evil
702:
652:Feature requests
560:
554:
538:featured content
487:
481:
471:
432:logical negation
403:
396:
153:. Remember that
123:
122:
116:
103:
96:
89:
41:
40:
34:
21:
806:
805:
801:
800:
799:
797:
796:
795:
766:
765:
762:
761:
754:
750:
705:
704:
703:
696:
683:
674:
654:
634:
626:template layout
622:
567:
558:
552:
545:discuss civilly
530:
485:
479:
475:
474:
467:
463:
457:
451:
407:
406:
399:
392:
388:
382:
294:
266:
210:
120:
114:
107:
106:
99:
92:
85:
81:
73:
72:
38:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
804:
802:
794:
793:
788:
783:
778:
768:
767:
764:
763:
760:
759:
751:
746:
743:Voting is evil
732:
726:
721:
716:
711:
697:
686:
685:
684:
682:
679:
673:
670:
653:
650:
633:
630:
621:
618:
586:the Developers
566:
563:
529:
526:
525:
524:
521:
518:
515:
510:
507:
504:
499:
496:
473:
472:
464:
459:
450:
447:
405:
404:
397:
389:
384:
381:
378:
377:
376:
372:
355:
348:
341:
334:
318:
310:
293:
290:
265:
262:
261:
260:
245:
234:
223:civilly engage
218:
209:
206:
167:. In summary,
131:
130:
124:
112:
109:
108:
105:
104:
97:
90:
82:
77:
74:
62:
61:
44:
42:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
803:
792:
789:
787:
784:
782:
779:
777:
774:
773:
771:
757:
753:
752:
749:
744:
740:
736:
733:
730:
727:
725:
722:
720:
717:
715:
712:
710:
707:
706:
701:
694:
690:
680:
678:
671:
669:
667:
663:
658:
651:
649:
645:
643:
639:
631:
629:
627:
619:
617:
614:
610:
605:
603:
599:
593:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
564:
562:
557:
550:
549:Vote stacking
546:
541:
539:
535:
527:
522:
519:
516:
514:
511:
508:
505:
503:
500:
497:
495:
492:
491:
490:
484:
470:
466:
465:
462:
456:
448:
446:
444:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
415:
411:
402:
398:
395:
391:
390:
387:
379:
373:
370:
369:
364:
360:
356:
353:
349:
346:
342:
339:
335:
332:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
304:
303:
302:
300:
291:
289:
287:
282:
280:
276:
271:
263:
258:
254:
250:
249:verifiability
246:
243:
239:
235:
232:
228:
224:
219:
215:
214:
213:
207:
202:
198:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
170:
166:
165:majority rule
162:
161:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
138:
128:
125:
118:
117:
102:
98:
95:
91:
88:
84:
83:
80:
75:
70:
66:
59:
57:
53:
49:
43:
36:
35:
30:
19:
742:
675:
659:
655:
646:
635:
623:
612:
608:
606:
594:
568:
556:Not a ballot
542:
531:
512:
501:
493:
476:
442:
440:
423:
418:
412:
408:
366:
338:no consensus
314:explanations
313:
298:
295:
283:
277:in reaching
274:
267:
211:
173:
168:
159:
158:
141:
140:
134:
126:
45:
672:Arbitration
578:Jimmy Wales
494:== Title ==
469:WP:PETITION
414:Wikipedians
270:straw polls
191:Jimmy Wales
46:This is an
770:Categories
483:historical
453:See also:
401:WP:NOTVOTE
286:Quickpolls
255:, and the
253:notability
50:about the
689:Consensus
638:elections
620:Standards
582:the Board
574:consensus
449:Petitions
386:Shortcuts
380:Not-votes
307:consensus
279:consensus
242:consensus
160:consensus
137:consensus
79:Shortcuts
29:WP:Voting
748:Shortcut
681:See also
662:sysadmin
461:Shortcut
434:and was
394:WP:!VOTE
227:civility
179:stewards
58:policies
739:WP:VINE
326:civilly
317:course.
275:assists
101:WP:VOTE
94:WP:POLL
87:WP:PNSD
756:WP:VIE
632:People
693:!vote
584:, or
419:!vote
189:, or
142:means
691:and
640:and
536:and
368:fact
54:and
666:CTO
523:...
424:not
361:or
299:are
772::
668:.
613:is
588:.
580:,
559:}}
553:{{
486:}}
480:{{
251:,
244:).
197:.
185:,
171:.
60:.
737:(
695:.
333:.
259:.
71:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
